"The name's Bond... James [insert advert] Bond"

Apologies for once again failing miserably to write anything for the last few weeks. This time it wasn't just down to laziness - it was laziness combined with illness. Mostly laziness though. I say this as if any of you care. Did you even notice I was gone? I'd guess not. Anyway, moving on...

If today's blog entry seems like an incoherent, rambling piece of drivel please forgive me - I'm recovering from some kind of virus or food poisoning or something and feeling a bit stuffed up and spaced out. I'm not entirely sure it's making sense even as I type it but hey, worst case scenario is that I write something unintentionally hilarious that makes me look like I'm on drugs. Which I'm not.

Avoiding the easy choice of writing about Christmas movies, or indeed attempting to justify what the hell I'm doing typing this on Christmas day (it beats watching the crap that's on TV), what can I write about? Casting my mind back to my last trip to the cinema, it was... CASINO ROYALE. Yep, you'd have thought I'd have had my say by now on the new Bond movie but no, so here it is.

First of all, I'm not going to dwell on the big talking point, which is the new man himself. I never had a problem with Daniel Craig being announced since he's an actor rather than a face - not something that could be said for several other candidates that were mentioned. And guess what? He's very good. So that's that taken care of.

Of course, there's more to it than that. Just as other larger-than-life heroes have been given reboots and clean slates of late (Batman and Superman spring to mind), this film has been touted as the one that goes back to basics, back to his roots, back to the novels, etc. In other words, forget what you know, this is Bond from the beginning.

In terms of how it relates to Fleming's novels, I can't say. I've never read any of them. I did read some of the newspaper strips based on the novels though, does that count? If it does, then it seems like a faithful portrayal of the character.

So anyway, the Bond franchise has been refreshed, rebooted, whatever. A lot of what you'd associate with Bond has been wiped clean, so what has it been replaced with?

Not that much different to be honest. Moneypenny's gone (alluded to in one of the film's more laboured jokes), but hasn't really been replaced by anyone; M is still around and being played by Judi Dench, who already played the role anyway; a lot of the OTT humour is gone, but there are still plenty of corny one-liners.

Maybe it's because they decided to pick a director who'd already worked with Bond, or maybe (as would seem to be the case from the reviews I've read) it's just me but I don't see a whole world of difference between this and the previous bonds with the exception that they've decided to go a little more down to Earth. But since we're talking about James Bond, who the hell wants down to Earth?

One other grumble - while I've read that the opening action sequence involving a lot of running about and stunt work is very exciting (which it is, I'll give you), I couldn't help noticing that it relies very heavily on this "free running" fad that seems so popular right now. With this brand of extreme sport already forming the basis for film (DISTRICT 13) and adverts (such as the recent Xbox effort) this year, it already seemed "of its time" even as I watched it. It seems to me therefore that it's going to age just as much as the blaxploitation-style afro goodness of LIVE AND LET DIE, if not even quicker.

One change that works - Vesper Lynd is not just a mightily attractive Bond girl, she's an actual character for a change and is used to bring a bit of depth to 007's story. That isn't entirely new either, mind you - it's already been done with unfairly-maligned ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, which remains the best Bond film to date.

One of the key changes is the lack of Q and his wacky gadgets - there are no dart-firing pens or X-ray Mars Bars or whatever the hell it was that Bond used to be issued with but alas this aspect of the series has been replaced with one aspect that is even more likely to take you out of the movie... product placement.

I understand it's big business these days, but there were times when I felt like I was watching an advert rather than a movie. Every time Bond acquires a car or a gadget, we have to have at least one shot establishing the brand name.

Great, so I know what type of laptop Bond uses. I know what type of phone he uses. I know the car he drives. Well here's the thing - I don't give a monkey's scrotum what type of bloody phone he uses. I want him to beat up bad guys, make smart-ass jokes, bed some women in a wholly un-PC way and then disappear beneath the waves on a skateboard that turns into a submarine or something.

But no, we can't have silly gadgets ruining the film - if we do that, how will the audience concentrate on what type of laptop they should be buying? It got to the point where every time some gadget appeared I immediately found myself looking out for the brand name. I'm sure that's great news for the guys in charge of product placement, but it's pish if you're trying to watch a film. I look forward to the next Daniel Craig outing as Bond, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN I-POD.

The joke's on them anyway, as I have no intention of buying a laptop or a new phone. Haha.

If it seems like I'm saying the new Bond is a bad film, please don't take it that way. In fact, it's the best in a while, and a very good thriller (albeit one that goes on a bit too long) and you should see it if you haven't already. And if it's still on at your local cinema. Which it might not be, given how long it's taken me to write about it.

Anyway, I recommend it - it's very good. It's just not as different as it seems to think it is.